I'd go for the two year mark as well.
Bruce
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/16 Matthew Daubney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'll stick this in this thread as it's related. Will there be a chance
> > to discuss the election process once it's finished?
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 09:44 +, Sean Miller wrote:
> I think one year is too short as it wouldn't give time for any culture
> change to come into effect and as such it wouldn't be possible to
> judge the existing Team Leader's effectiveness... it's surprising how
> fast a year goes.
>
> Perhaps
I think one year is too short as it wouldn't give time for any culture
change to come into effect and as such it wouldn't be possible to
judge the existing Team Leader's effectiveness... it's surprising how
fast a year goes.
Perhaps every 2 years there should be an election, even if it is the
incu
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:14 +, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2008/11/16 Matthew Daubney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'll stick this in this thread as it's related. Will there be a chance
> > to discuss the election process once it's finished?
>
> There was an opportunity between my first mail on the subject
2008/11/16 Matthew Daubney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll stick this in this thread as it's related. Will there be a chance
> to discuss the election process once it's finished?
There was an opportunity between my first mail on the subject and the
start of November :)
However I came up with the plan
